I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[IThoughtAboutIt]

And what does that mean?

Laugh Out Loud

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Laugh Out Loud

Yeah, that is a feeling and not a reasoned argument.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dan, I appreciate your wisdom. However, I don't agree that 'things' happened by the course of evolution via natural selection. Or just plain old evolution. So without any further ado, I shall leave it there for now. And I appreciate your wisdom about insects, really I do. Another study of wonderous works.

That's because you absolutely refuse to understand and learn what evolution actually is.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you don't actually know how evolution works then. You have no valid reason for dismissing it.

You misunderstood my post. But frankly, while you (or I) can quote what scientists say, you're not going to tell me they "know," because...they don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hagfish? I have to look that up, but aren't those the ones from the North Atlantic that get snot all over the place when they are caught?

Now I'm laughing out loud...

 

[Tiberius]

Laugh Out Loud

Given that you knew exactly what I meant (I was asking why you decided that your best response was to laugh instead of actually addressing the point I raised), I take it to mean that you don't actually have an answer, you are unable to explain it, and thus all you can do is laugh in a weak attempt to disparage something you don't understand and certainly can't refute.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

How can that be when sharks are more closely related to us Humans than they are to hagfish?

It's like saying that my brother is more closely related to my cousin than he is to me.

View attachment 63566

Are you suggesting that fish don’t exist? Or that hag fish or not fish? Are they sharks or not fish?

 

[Tiberius]

Are you suggesting that fish don’t exist? Or that hag fish or not fish? Are they sharks or not fish?

This explains it far better than I can: Actually, There's No Such Thing as a Fish, Say Cladists

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

This explains it far better than I can: Actually, There's No Such Thing as a Fish, Say Cladists

OK so you don’t believe that fish exist. So what do you believe a hagfish is? What do you believe a shark is?

btw/ do you happen to have reference for the hypothesis that sharks are more closely related to tetrapods than hagfish?

 

[Tiberius]

OK so you don’t believe that fish exist. So what do you believe a hagfish is? What do you believe a shark is?

You either didn't read my source or you didn't understand it.

Do you know what a clade is?

btw/ do you happen to have reference for the hypothesis that sharks are more closely related to tetrapods than hagfish?

Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes

"In modern classification schemes, living vertebrates consist of two main groups, the jawless Agnatha (represented by hagfishes and lampreys) and the jawed Gnathostomata. Jawed vertebrates are divided again into two groups, the cartilaginous Chondrichthyes (represented by sharks, rays, and chimeras) and the bony Osteichthyes. The two main groups of bony vertebrates are the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) and the lobe-limbed vertebrates (Sarcopterygii). The latter comprise three groups: coelacanths (Actinistia), lungfishes (Dipnoi), and four-limbed vertebrates, or Tetrapoda, encompassing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Clack 2002). More commonly, however, the designation Sarcopterygii is applied to a group comprising the coelacanths and lungfishes—the lobe-finned fishes. The phylogenetic relationship among the vertebrate groups has been agreed upon for some time (Romer 1966; Carroll 1988), with two important exceptions. The first of these exceptions, the relationship of hagfishes and lampreys to each other and to the gnathostomes appears to have now been resolved with the help of concatenated sequences from a large number of nuclear genes. Takezaki et al. (2003) have provided convincing evidence that hagfishes and lampreys are related to each other more closely than either of them is to the jawed vertebrates. "​

 

[YoursTrue]

You either didn't read my source or you didn't understand it.

Do you know what a clade is?
Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes

"In modern classification schemes, living vertebrates consist of two main groups, the jawless Agnatha (represented by hagfishes and lampreys) and the jawed Gnathostomata. Jawed vertebrates are divided again into two groups, the cartilaginous Chondrichthyes (represented by sharks, rays, and chimeras) and the bony Osteichthyes. The two main groups of bony vertebrates are the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) and the lobe-limbed vertebrates (Sarcopterygii). The latter comprise three groups: coelacanths (Actinistia), lungfishes (Dipnoi), and four-limbed vertebrates, or Tetrapoda, encompassing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Clack 2002). More commonly, however, the designation Sarcopterygii is applied to a group comprising the coelacanths and lungfishes—the lobe-finned fishes. The phylogenetic relationship among the vertebrate groups has been agreed upon for some time (Romer 1966; Carroll 1988), with two important exceptions. The first of these exceptions, the relationship of hagfishes and lampreys to each other and to the gnathostomes appears to have now been resolved with the help of concatenated sequences from a large number of nuclear genes. Takezaki et al. (2003) have provided convincing evidence that hagfishes and lampreys are related to each other more closely than either of them is to the jawed vertebrates. "​

OK, do you really think this confirms the theory of evolution? If so, please explain how. And if not, then what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, do you really think this confirms the theory of evolution? If so, please explain how. And if not, then what?

Yes, it does. Do you remember our discussion on the concept of evidence? In the sciences a theory will make predictions and can be used to test it. If what we observe is what is predicted by the theory that is confirmation., by definition. It is not absolute proof. In the real world there cannot be "absolute proof" which is why scientists avoid the word "proof". All there is is evidence. There is a possibility of evidence being wrong, though at this point the odds that the theory of evolution is wrong is microscopically small.

Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence for creationism. That is not due to some evil plot by atheists but it is due to the fact that the very few creationists that can do "science" appear to be scared to death to put their beliefs to the test. In the sciences to even begin to have evidence what one has to be willing to do is to propose a reasonable test that could possibly refute one's beliefs. Why are those creationists that supposedly believe their case without question afraid to do this? Is it because they know deep down that they are wrong? It appears to be that way to me.

 

[Tiberius]

OK, do you really think this confirms the theory of evolution? If so, please explain how. And if not, then what?

And here you go moving the goalposts.

I was not presenting this as proof of evolution.

I was presenting this as proof that your viewpoint about evolution is incorrect, namely, in post 577 where you said, "Fish are non-tetrapod vertebrates. All organisms that are vertebrates but are not tetrapods, are fish." I'm, pointing out that the creatures you call fish do not all share a single common ancestor that is not also shared with non-fish.

Your views about evolution are wrong.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

You either didn't read my source or you didn't understand it.

Do you know what a clade is?/

I’m sorry I didn’t see a source? I saw a stick figure. I tried clicking on your stick figure and it didn’t take me anywhere. I looked but didn’t see an actual citation.

And yes I do know what a clade is. I learned that while I was earning my first masters degree in ecology and evolution. Do you know what a classification is? Do you know what taxonomy is? Do you understand that classification, taxonomy, and cladistics are three different things? Do you understand that just because a taxon may not be a monophyletic group doesn’t mean that it’s classification based on similar traits isn’t a useful concept?

By your reasoning dinosaurs don’t exist. By that reasoning reptiles don’t exist. By that reasoning amphibians don’t exist. And by that reason fish don’t exist. As you’ve already pointed out.

Personally I think all these things actually exist and that their classification is a useful concept. It’s like that painting of a painter painting himself painting himself painting himself. Without birds dinosaurs are not a monophyletic group. Without dinosaurs reptiles are not a monophyletic group. Without reptiles amphibians are not a monophyletic group. Without amphibians fish are not a monophyletic group.

Cladistics is extremely valuable. But just like any other mental construction, which all thoughts are, it has limits.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Given that you knew exactly what I meant (I was asking why you decided that your best response was to laugh instead of actually addressing the point I raised), I take it to mean that you don't actually have an answer, you are unable to explain it, and thus all you can do is laugh in a weak attempt to disparage something you don't understand and certainly can't refute.

I don’t claim that to be my best response. But it certainly is the most appropriate response. When somebody says they don’t believe that fish exist, yes I tend to laugh. And when you say I can’t refute that fish do not exist, goodness I have to wonder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t claim that to be my best response. But it certainly is the most appropriate response. When somebody says they don’t believe that fish exist, yes I tend to laugh. And when you say I can’t refute that fish do not exist, goodness I have to wonder.

That was not exactly what was said or implied. The problem is that biologically "fish" is a very poorly defined term. If you call a shark a "fish" then you would have to call a human a fish too. The old Linnaean classification system has problems. It is not consistent. Cladistics fixes that problem, but as a result in technical terms some concepts will have to be either redefined or abandoned.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

You either didn't read my source or you didn't understand it.

Do you know what a clade is?



Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes

"In modern classification schemes, living vertebrates consist of two main groups, the jawless Agnatha (represented by hagfishes and lampreys) and the jawed Gnathostomata. Jawed vertebrates are divided again into two groups, the cartilaginous Chondrichthyes (represented by sharks, rays, and chimeras) and the bony Osteichthyes. The two main groups of bony vertebrates are the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) and the lobe-limbed vertebrates (Sarcopterygii). The latter comprise three groups: coelacanths (Actinistia), lungfishes (Dipnoi), and four-limbed vertebrates, or Tetrapoda, encompassing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Clack 2002). More commonly, however, the designation Sarcopterygii is applied to a group comprising the coelacanths and lungfishes—the lobe-finned fishes. The phylogenetic relationship among the vertebrate groups has been agreed upon for some time (Romer 1966; Carroll 1988), with two important exceptions. The first of these exceptions, the relationship of hagfishes and lampreys to each other and to the gnathostomes appears to have now been resolved with the help of concatenated sequences from a large number of nuclear genes. Takezaki et al. (2003) have provided convincing evidence that hagfishes and lampreys are related to each other more closely than either of them is to the jawed vertebrates. "​

Thanks. I appreciate this quote. Please note that it comes far after my request for a reference.And well I guess I’ll take your word for please no it’s not an actual citation even with the title and while I guess I’ll take your word for the quote please no it’s not an actual citation even with the title what journal was what year what authors?

You either didn't read my source or you didn't understand it.

Do you know what a clade is?



Phylogenetic Relationship of Tetrapod, Coelacanth, and Lungfish Revealed by the Sequences of Forty-Four Nuclear Genes

"In modern classification schemes, living vertebrates consist of two main groups, the jawless Agnatha (represented by hagfishes and lampreys) and the jawed Gnathostomata. Jawed vertebrates are divided again into two groups, the cartilaginous Chondrichthyes (represented by sharks, rays, and chimeras) and the bony Osteichthyes. The two main groups of bony vertebrates are the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) and the lobe-limbed vertebrates (Sarcopterygii). The latter comprise three groups: coelacanths (Actinistia), lungfishes (Dipnoi), and four-limbed vertebrates, or Tetrapoda, encompassing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Clack 2002). More commonly, however, the designation Sarcopterygii is applied to a group comprising the coelacanths and lungfishes—the lobe-finned fishes. The phylogenetic relationship among the vertebrate groups has been agreed upon for some time (Romer 1966; Carroll 1988), with two important exceptions. The first of these exceptions, the relationship of hagfishes and lampreys to each other and to the gnathostomes appears to have now been resolved with the help of concatenated sequences from a large number of nuclear genes. Takezaki et al. (2003) have provided convincing evidence that hagfishes and lampreys are related to each other more closely than either of them is to the jawed vertebrates. "​

please note that you did not previously supply this quote. So how could I have read it or understood it? All you provided previously was a stick figure. Also note that this does not provide the year or the journal of publication or any of the other pertinent information other than the names. I do appreciate the quote however. I asked for the source because I’m generally interested in the subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That was not exactly what was said or implied. The problem is that biologically "fish" is a very poorly defined term. If you call a shark a "fish" then you would have to call a human a fish too. The old Linnaean classification system has problems. It is not consistent. Cladistics fixes that problem, but as a result in technical terms some concepts will have to be either redefined or abandoned.

I think of Linnaean classification as a favorite old hammer. We know it, it works in general and has its utility, but they did invent nail guns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

please note that you did not previously supply this quote. So how could I have read it or understood it? All you provided previously was a stick figure. Also note that this does not provide the year or the journal of publication or any of the other pertinent information other than the names. I do appreciate the quote however. I asked for the source because I’m generally interested in the subject.

The "stick figure" is what results when one analyzes the evidence. It is best not to try to insult what one does not understand. Asking questions is reasonable. Laughing when one is ignorant only makes a person look foolish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think of Linnaean classification as a favorite old hammer. We know it, it works in general and has its utility, but they did invent nail guns.

Yes, still very useful at times. Just like Newtonian gravity. That Newton was not "right" does not make his work useless. It got us to the Moon and back. But it does not work when one wants to use GPS.